How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Exactness and the Member Calculus — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Abelian Categories
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Cardinal Arithmetic, Cofinality and the Alephs
- Categories, Functors and Natural Transformations
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Exactness and the Member Calculus
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Limits and Colimits
- Modules over a Principal Ideal Domain and the Canonical Forms
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Ordinal Arithmetic and the First Uncountable Ordinal
- Ordinals, Cardinals, and Transfinite Recursion
- Preadditive and Additive Categories and Biproducts
- Reflective Subcategories and the Adjoint Functor Theorems
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Set Theory Beyond Choice: Recorded, Not Proved Here
- Suprema and Infima
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
2 · Summary
These examples keep the categorical language concrete. The first group shows how members look inside abelian groups, where honest elements coexist with members but do not exhaust them. The later examples work through short exact sequences and the composite kernel-cokernel sequence explicitly, so the reader can see where the abstract exactness lemmas differ from ordinary element manipulation and where they coincide.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
Members of an abelian group correspond to its subgroups
Example
In , a member corresponds exactly to the subgroup . Two members are equivalent exactly when they have the same image subgroup. Thus the member-calculus bijection of Members modulo equivalence correspond to subobjects becomes the usual identification of subgroup data with image subgroups.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An abelian group and a homomorphism .
The category is abelian (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
Member-equivalence classes correspond to subobjects (Members modulo equivalence correspond to subobjects).
Verification
In , subobjects of are exactly subgroup inclusions into , so [L2] identifies the class of with the subgroup represented by its image inclusion.
Therefore the abstract member-subobject correspondence is, in this category, the ordinary rule .
An ordinary element as the member from the integers
Example
Let be an abelian group and let . The homomorphism is a member of in the sense of Member of an object. Its associated subobject is the cyclic subgroup generated by .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An abelian group and an element .
A member of an object is just a morphism into it (Member of an object).
Member classes correspond to subobjects (Members modulo equivalence correspond to subobjects).
The category is abelian (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
Verification
The map is a group homomorphism , hence a member of by [L1].
Its image is the subgroup , so [L2] identifies the corresponding subobject with the cyclic subgroup generated by .
A general member of an abelian group need not come from an element
Statement refuted
Every member of an abelian group is equivalent to one arising from an ordinary element, that is, from a morphism .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The identity member .
Member classes correspond to subobjects (Members modulo equivalence correspond to subobjects).
The category is abelian (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
Counterexample
The image of the member is all of . By [L1], its equivalence class corresponds to the whole subgroup .
Any member coming from a map has cyclic image, because the image of is generated by the image of . The subgroup is not cyclic. Therefore is not equivalent to any member .
This refutes the statement.
A member chase verifying monicity
Example
Consider the inclusion If is a member with , then on a common epic cover, so already . This is the member-calculus proof that is monic.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The inclusion .
Monicity is detected by the implication (Monicity is detected by members).
Member cancellation is an equivalent reformulation (Monicity by member cancellation).
The category is abelian (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
Verification
If , choose an epic cover with . Since is the subgroup inclusion, . Hence .
By [L1], this proves that is monic; by [L2], it is the same computation as cancellation of equal members after applying .
The covering criterion checked in abelian groups
Example
For the short exact sequence the covering criterion says that every homomorphism with factors through after the trivial epic cover .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed short exact sequence in .
The covering criterion is equivalent to exactness (The covering criterion for exactness).
The category is abelian (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
Verification
If , then every value of is even, so . Therefore there is a unique homomorphism with .
This realizes the cover in [L1] with and . So the exactness criterion is visible here without any nontrivial refinement of domains.
The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite of module maps
Example
In , take Then , and the sequence of The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite becomes which is exact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The maps and in .
Module categories are abelian (Modules over a ring form an abelian category).
Every composite has the kernel-cokernel exact sequence (The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite).
Verification
Here , , , , , and .
The map is just , so it is multiplication by onto the subgroup . The connecting map is zero because it is induced by the cokernel map , which kills every even integer. The map is the identity on , and the remaining arrows are the obvious zero maps. This is the displayed sequence.
That concrete sequence is exact by direct inspection.
A non-split short exact sequence of abelian groups
Statement refuted
Every short exact sequence of abelian groups splits.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The short exact sequence
The category is abelian (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
A short exact sequence splits exactly when the quotient map has a section (Split short exact sequence in an abelian category, Splitting lemma in an abelian category).
Counterexample
The sequence is short exact in by the usual kernel-image computation.
If had a section , then would be an odd integer with , impossible in . So no section exists.
By [L2], the short exact sequence is nonsplit. This refutes the statement.
The splitting lemma instantiated at the published module theorem
Example
The categorical splitting lemma Splitting lemma in an abelian category specializes in to the published module statement The splitting lemma for short exact sequences of modules. The section, retraction, and direct-sum identity are literally the same equations.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A short exact sequence of modules together with either a section of its quotient map or a retraction of its inclusion.
From either a section or a retraction, the categorical splitting lemma produces the unique complementary retraction or section (Splitting lemma in an abelian category).
The published module splitting lemma states the same criterion in the module category (The splitting lemma for short exact sequences of modules).
Verification
A short exact sequence of modules is a short exact sequence in an abelian category, and the given section or retraction is exactly the additional datum required by [L1].
The complementary map produced by [L1] satisfies , , and , exactly the module equations stated in [L2].
Therefore the module theorem is the concrete instance of the categorical one.
The kernel row failure for multiplication by two computed
Example
For the multiplication-by-two morphism of short exact sequences used in The kernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences need not be short exact, the kernel row is so its failure to be short exact is visible before one ever constructs the snake connecting map.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The multiplication-by-two diagram of the cited counterexample.
That diagram lives in the abelian category (Abelian groups form an abelian category).
The cited counterexample computes the kernel row and shows it is not short exact (The kernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences need not be short exact).
Verification
The vertical kernels are , , and , so the kernel row is exactly .
The last arrow is the zero map , hence not epic.
So the row cannot be short exact.
Sources
- Saunders Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, VIII.4
- Saunders Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, Theorem VIII.4.3
- The Stacks Project, Section 12.5, Lemma 12.5.15
- Saunders Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, Exercise VIII.4.6
- The Stacks Project, Algebra
- P. Hekmati, Homological Algebra, section 3.1
- The Stacks Project, Section 12.5, Lemma 12.5.10